On 22/05/15 09:57, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
... different updating schemes that would allow the user to select between
always having the latest version of everything, and something that provides
more long-term stability. But then I'm not even sure if Debian/Ubuntu really
allow the user to configure such a choice (despite having an urgency indicator
on each package version).
Well, there sort of is. There're four levels, roughly, oldstable
(previous release), stable (current release, roughly every two years),
testing (looks like it works, might be broken) and sid/unstable (update
ALL the things) There's also experimental for people to test packaging
scripts, etc, and I think unmaintained packages are removed.
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-ftparchives.en.html
MP does experimental with local port repos, I guess. Ports seem to vary
between testing and no maintainer (not an unknown problem in Debian
https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2005/07/msg00047.html ). Flagging the
port status is a good idea, but I think definitions and maybe a harder
division than that is required. PyPI allows that information to be
stored ("Development Status"
https://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=browse&c=5 ), but (that I've seen)
it's not part of a process in the way it is with Debian.
Ubuntu is a fork of testing that then get stabilised and added to
independently. This happens every six months, with a new five year
supported version every couple of years https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
. They have varied levels of support reflected in their repository
structure (main, restricted, universe, multiverse
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu ) where the same
divisions in Debian are more to do with licensing.
Russell
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
